Check a secret provider configuration

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, but the description does not explain what 'check' entails (e.g., whether it performs a health probe, returns status, or has side effects). The behavioral impact beyond the HTTP POST method is unclear.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose, but it omits critical details. While conciseness is valued, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description should reference what the response contains (e.g., health status object). It also lacks context about required preconditions, such as ensuring the secret provider config exists. The description feels incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds no information about parameters. With schema coverage at 50%, it should clarify when the optional 'body' is needed or its purpose, but it does not. The schema documentation for 'body' is minimal.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Check a secret provider configuration', which repeats the title, and adds the HTTP method and authorization class. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like pc_get_companies_by_company_id_secret_providers_health, which might have overlapping functionality.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify prerequisites, such as needing a valid secret provider config ID, or contexts where this check is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.